InPut Pravdy No. 63, the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour group made a last attempt to ascertain whether the
six deputies (the Chkheidze group) now intend—after the vast majority of
the class-conscious workers have condemned their alliance with the
liquidators—to take steps towards an agreement with the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour group in the
Duma.[1]

The Russian Social-Democratic Labour group asked the
“Social-Democratic group” whether it now intended unreservedly
to recognise the decisions of the entire Marxist body of 1903 (the
Programme) and of 1908–10 (condemnation of the liquidators). Why the
Russian Social-Democratic Labour group put this question in the forefront,
is clear. The decisions of 1903, 1908 and 1910 were adopted prior to
any splits between the Marxists and the liquidators. These decisions
are the banner of all Marxists. If any agreement between the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour group and the “Social-Democratic group” is at
all possible, then it is of course possible only on the basis of the
unqualified recognition of these decisions, which were adopted before the
split.

In issue No. 2 of Nasha Rabochaya Gazeta, the Chkheidze group
published an “Open Reply” in which clarity is at last achieved and which
therefore deserves the most serious attention from all workers who
seriously try to understand the causes of the disagreements, and want
genuine unity.

1. THE PROGRAMME AND THE NATIONAL QUESTION

At the Marxist Congress which drew up the Programme (1903),
the Bundists (Jewish liquidators) proposed that a demand be included in the
Programme for “the establishment
of institutions that will guarantee them complete freedom of cultural
development”. This was opposed by the present-day liquidators Martynov,
Martov and Koltsov. They argued, quite correctly, that this demand ran
counter to the international principles of Social-Democracy. This demand
was rejected by all votes against the vote of the Bundists (see
the Minutes).

Marxists assert that the “establishment of institutions” is the same
“cultural-national autonomy”, which Social-Democracy rejects.

In their “Open Reply” the six deputies assert the contrary. They say:
we advocated the “establishment of institutions”, but we did not advocate
cultural-national autonomy.

Very well, we say in reply; let us assume for a moment that
the two are not the same. But the Congress also rejected the
“establishment of institutions”. You know that perfectly
well. You know that, to please the nationalists, you have retreated
from the Programme. It was for this violation of the Programme that
the Bundists, whose proposals the Congress rejected, complimented you.

After the Social-Democratic group made its declaration at the opening
of the Fourth Duma, they wrote:

“It may be pointed out that the formula of the
Social-Democrats [i. e., liquidators] lacked clarity. That is quite
true. But the important thing is that the workers’ deputies
[i. e., Chkheidze’s supporters] abandoned the rigid point of view
on which the official theory on the national question is based.”
(Zeit No. 9, editorial, column 3.)

The “official theory” is nothing more nor less than the
Programme. The Bundists compliment Chkheidze and his friends for
infringing the Programme. The Russian Social-Democratic Labour
group asked: Is the “Social-Democratic group” willing to retract this
infringement of the Programme?

The reply was clear: “This formula [i. e., establishment of
institutions] contains absolutely nothing that the Social-Democratic group
should retract” (cf. “Open Reply”).

We refuse to retract this infringement of the Programme—such was the
reply of the “Social-Democratic group”.

2. THE DECISION OF 1908

The Russian Social-Democratic Labour group next asked the
“Social-Democratic group” whether it was willing to recognise the 1908
decision of the Marxists, which was recently endorsed also by the Lettish
conciliators.

“Liquidationism is an attempt on the part of a certain
section of the Party intelligentsia to liquidate [i. e., to dissolve,
destroy, abolish, put an end to] the existing Party organisation, and to
substitute for it an amorphous federation acting within legal hounds
[i. e., within the law, in open existence] at all costs, even at the cost
of openly abandoning the programme, tactics and traditions [i. e., the
preceding experience] of the Party.”

And this decision goes on to say that “it is necessary to wage a
most relentless ideological and organisational struggle against these
liquidationist attempts” (cf. Report,
p. 38).[2]

This decision was adopted by the united Marxist body in the presence of
representatives of all groups, including the liquidators (Dan, Axelrod and
others), the Bundists, and so forth. It was adopted in December 1908,
before there were any splits.

The Russian Social-Democratic Labour group asked the Chkheidze group
whether it accepted this 1908 decision, which condemned
liquidationism.

Not a word! Not a sound! It treated the decision of 1908 as
though it did not exist. Incredible, but a fact. And this silence is more
eloquent than words. It reveals an incredibly arrogant disregard
for decisions. Decisions that are not to my liking are simply
non-existent—such are the ethics of the liquidationist deputies.

The latter acted in the same way when it came to accepting deputy
Jagiello into the group. It was pointed out to them that the 1908 decision
rejected “unity” with Jagiello’s non-Social-Democratic party. But to this
they replied that in 1907, i. e., a year before this decision was adopted,
the Social-Democratic group in the Second Duma had accepted as members the
Lithuanian deputies who were unquestionably Social-Democrats. This means
openly mocking at decisions.

3. THE 1910 DECISION

“The historical situation in the Social-Democratic
movement in the period of bourgeois counter-revolution inevitably gives
rise—as a manifestation of the bourgeois influence on the
proletariat—on the one hand, to repudiation of the illegal
Social-Democratic Party, belittling of its role and importance, and
attempts to whittle down the programmatic and tactical tasks and the
slogans of consistent Social-Democracy, etc., and on the other hand, to
repudiation of Social-Democratic activities in the Duma and of the
utilisation of legal possibilities, failure to understand the importance of
either, inability to apply consistent Social-Democratic tactics to the
specific historical conditions prevailing at the present time, etc.

“An inalienable element of Social-Democratic tactics
under these conditions is the elimination of both these deviations by
extending and intensifying Social-Democratic activities in all fields of
the proletarian class struggle, and explanation of the dangers of these
deviations.”

This decision was adopted unanimously, prior to any splits, in
the presence of representatives of all groups. It condemns
liquidationism and otzovism.

The Russian Social-Democratic Labour group asked the
“Social-Democratic group” whether it recognised that decision. The latter
replied: “The 1910 decisions do not even contain the word
liquidationism”.

The “word” is not there! But whom did the entire Marxist
body have in mind when it condemned the “repudiation of the illegal
Social-Democratic Party, the belittling of its role and importance”? Whom
if not the liquidators?

Lastly, we have a most authentic document, published three years ago
and refuted by nobody, a document emanating from all the “national”
Marxists (Letts, Bundists and Poles), and from Trotsky (the liquidators
cannot imagine better witnesses). This document plainly states that “it
would in fact be desirable to call the trend mentioned in the resolution
liquidationism, which must be combated....”

How can the deputies have the effrontery to mislead the workers in this
unblushing manner?

The “Social-Democratic group” refuses to recognise the 1910
decisions! Instead, it declares that it is in “complete agreement” with
the liquidationist Nasha Rabochaya Gazeta.

The 1903, 1908 and 1910 decisions of the entire Marxist body do not
exist for the liquidationist deputies. For them only the “decisions” of
the liquidationist newspaper exist.

4. “TRENDS”

While flouting direct decisions and ignoring the will of the workers,
the “Social-Democratic group” dilates on the usefulness of all “trends
of Marxism”.

Marxists all over the world take the workers’ organisations as
their basis. In our country, however, some people want to take elusive
“trends” as their basis. In Germany and in fact all over the world, the
Social-Democrats unite the workers, their local cells,
organisations and groups. In our country, some people want to unite
“trends”.

“All trends among the Marxists”! But among the liquidators alone
there are at least two “trends”: Borba and Nasha Rabochaya
Gazeta, disputing with each other as to which of them is the best
custodian of the “August precepts”.

The idea of uniting ten “trends”, all of them isolated from the
masses, is hopeless. The idea of uniting all workers willing to
build up the entire Marxist body is a great cause, which is being
accomplished before our very eyes with the ardent support of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour group.

* * *

Clarity has been achieved. The overwhelming majority of the workers
(see the returns of the insurance elections, group collections and the
correspondence between the workers’ groups and the two groups in the Duma)
have declared in favour of the Marxists, in favour of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour group, and against the liquidators. The August
bloc has broken down; the Lettish Social-Democrats and Buryanov have left
them, and the supporters of An and of Borba are leaving them; the
six deputies grouped around Chkheidze have joined the worst and
most liquidationist fragment of the August bloc.

Notes

[1]Put Pravdy No. 50, for March 30 (April 12), 1914 published the
resolution of the Fourth Congress of the Social-Democrats of the Lettish
Region concerning the split in the Social-Democratic group in the Fourth
Duma. The resolution stressed the need for unity of the Duma
Social-Democratic group on the basis of acceptance of the Programme and
Rules of the Party and the Party decisions. (See pp. 177–51 of this
volume.)

In connection with this resolution of the Lettish Congress, the same
issue of Put Pravdy published an “Open Enquiry” to the
Menshevik’ deputies as to their attitude towards the principles advanced by
the Lettish workers. This enquiry of the Bolshevik newspaper was ignored by
the Mensheviks. Thereupon, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group in
the Duma published an “Open Letter” in Put Pravdy No. 63 for
April 17, 1914 in which they demanded from the Mensheviks a clear and
definite reply to the question put to them.

The “Open Letter” evoked an “Open Reply” by the Mensheviks, which
was published in Nasha Rabochaya Gazeta, May 4 (17). This reply is
dealt with in the present article.

[2]Lenin is quoting the resolution of the Fifth All-Russia Conference of
the R.S.D.L.P.—the “All-Russia Conference of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party. (In December 1908.)” It was published by
newspaper Proletary, Paris, 1909, p. 38.